Is the objective REALLY the primary ground of assurance?

[SolaScriptura]

Lately it seems I've read from various Reformed folks that the primary ground of assurance are the objective promises of God. But I have to ask: is that position really correct from the vantage point of the Westminster Confession? Indeed, I think it is easily demonstrated that from the vantage point of the Westminster Confession, practically speaking the emphasis is on the "subjective."

Consider the conditional – and highly subjective – clauses in WCF 18.1:

"Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favour of God, and estate of salvation; which hope of theirs shall perish; yet such as (1) truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and (2) love Him in sincerity, (3) endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God; which hope shall never make them ashamed." (Emphasis mine)

Notice the criteria: Truly believing in the Lord Jesus. Loving Him in sincerity. Endeavoring to walk in a good conscience before Him. Aside from there being a lot of requisite conditions (numerous by today's consideration!) in order for there to be legitimate assurance, it should be observed that these are all subjective and experiential conditions.

The very next point in the WCF, 18.2 picks up and elaborates on this hope which is subjectively ascertained by noting:

"This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion, grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible (!) assurance of faith, founded upon (1) the divine truth of the promises of salvation, (2) the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, (3) the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God: which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption." (Emphasis mine)

First, it seems shocking (especially to the Lutherans and certain Continental folks!) that the Divines would call our assurance "infallible" and yet have 2 out of the 3 foundations be matters that are subjectively known and interpreted. Second, I think that point 2 is interesting because it alludes to the notion that the objective promises of God have as their aim a practical and experiential evidence in our mundane daily existence. I believe the saintly Assembly Divines here demonstrated their pious brilliance yet again.

So in light of what the Confession states, is it really confessional to say that the promises of God are the primary, or most important, ground of assurance?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Q. 80. Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,[SUP]349[/SUP] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made,[SUP]350[/SUP] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[SUP]351[/SUP] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[SUP]352[/SUP]
Q. 81. Are all true believers at all times assured of their present being in the estate of grace, and that they shall be saved?
A. Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith,[SUP]353[/SUP] true believers may wait long before they obtain it;[SUP]354[/SUP] and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions;[SUP]355[/SUP] yet they are never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keeps them from sinking into utter despair.[SUP]356

Question 80's answer seems to indicate that the truth of God's promises are very important. Faith enabled by the Spirit grounded upon the truth of God's promises seem to be the center piece here. [/SUP]​

 

[SolaScriptura]

Randy,

I didn't suggest that the objective isn't there at all. I'm asking if the thrust or tone or emphasis of the Confession is such that we can rightly say that the objective basis is the PRIMARY basis.

Q81 from the Catechism, by noting that assurance isn't constant implies that inherent subjectivity involved in apprehending it.
Q80 from the Catechism echoes what I already pointed out in the Confession. Allow me to emphasize the subjective in it...

Q. 80. Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him,[SUP]349[/SUP] may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made,[SUP]350[/SUP] and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God,[SUP]351[/SUP] be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.[SUP]352[/SUP]
Q. 81. Are all true believers at all times assured of their present being in the estate of grace, and that they shall be saved?
A. Assurance of grace and salvation not being of the essence of faith,[SUP]353[/SUP] true believers may wait long before they obtain it;[SUP]354[/SUP] and, after the enjoyment thereof, may have it weakened and intermitted, through manifold distempers, sins, temptations, and desertions;[SUP]355[/SUP] yet they are never left without such a presence and support of the Spirit of God as keeps them from sinking into utter despair.[SUP]356

Question 80's answer seems to indicate that the truth of God's promises are very important. Faith enabled by the Spirit grounded upon the truth of God's promises seem to be the center piece here. [/SUP]​

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Are you asking about what the basis and measuring stick ought to be for our assurance? Am I understanding your question correctly? Are you asking what should our primary measuring stick be according to the Westminster as opposed to what you say Lutheran's and some Continentals think? I put that question that way because I don't know what the Lutheran's and Continentals have written.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Ben:

It's good to point out these subjective conditions here. But note: one must carefully distinguish between cause and condition. Conditions, indeed, serve as a sine qua non. Without these conditions, one will not have assurance, at least properly. Note also that one can have false assurance, even in professing to rest on the promises, so these conditions are laid down whereby we may discover whether our sense of assurance is a true one and that we meet the proper conditions for it.

That having been said, I repeat that conditions are not cause (for example faith is a condition of our justification, but is not its cause, grace alone being such). The cause of assurance, according to WlC 80, is "faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises." Now there is the subjective here to be sure: this faith, though a gift of God, is ours, though it is a faith grounded upon the truth, the truth expressed in the promises of God. The object of our faith, as always, is objective: the truth of God's promises.

So the cause of our assurance is faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises. The cause is our believing, and more robust believing (not all faith, for we may have a weak faith and lack assurance) exhibits those conditions you mentioned and comprise an infallible assurance. You are right to note the subjective elements here in both the cause and conditions but they are differently constructed, in my opinion, than you constructed them.

Peace,
Alan

 

[SolaScriptura]

Ben:
The cause of assurance, according to WSC 80, is "faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises." Now there is the subjective here to be sure: this faith, though a gift of God, is ours, though it is a faith grounded upon the truth, the truth expressed in the promises of God. The object of our faith, as always, is objective: the truth of God's promises.

So the cause of our assurance is faith grounded upon the truth of God's promises. The cause is our believing, and more robust believing (not all faith, for we may have a weak faith and lack assurance) exhibits those conditions you mentioned and comprise an infallible assurance. You are right to note the subjective elements here in both the cause and conditions but they are differently constructed, in my opinion, than you constructed them.

Peace,
Alan

Alan,

That sounds great! Except it is based on something other than the Confession says. You cut short your reference to Q80. Let's expand it out a bit: ... by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God[/quote]

The ground is multifaceted here, and the inner working of the Spirit is a co-foundation as stated in the Answer.

But don't forget the WCF. 18.1 clearly makes requisite very subjective criteria, and 18.2 gives (as I can tell) 3 foundational concepts, only 1 of which is the objective.

So is the THRUST of the teaching the primacy of the objective?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Ben:

I did not cite the rest of WLC 80 because it is the same sort of thing that you were citing in WCF 18.1. I would call what follows the "and" not "further grounds" but "conditions," as you did, which I would continue to distinguish from cause.

I would not prefer to characterize the Standards as putting a "primacy," as such, on either side, however. That is your language. I think that the treatment of assurance is coordinated between the objective and the subjective. Our assurance is grounded in and caused by the objective--the person and work of Christ as contained in the Word of God and the promises that it holds forth. But the conditions of it, as you have well-developed, are subjective. I must, first of all, believe it. Unless I subjectively appropriate and apprehend the objective, which includes my hearty belief, as well as mortification, and vivification, I will lack in assurance. The more my sanctification waxes, in other words, the more assurance I enjoy.

I think, Ben, that some don't like that is what the Standards are saying about the subjective (unmistakably a huge part). But that is what the Standards are saying (and I think that they accurately reflect the teaching of the Word). I am not sure that we are very far apart. Perhaps you want to emphasize a primacy here for the subjective because there is a lot of opposition out there on it and I get that. Of course, the more we are sanctified, the more that we know our only hope to be the active and passive obedience of Christ. How thankful I am for both and that my acceptance before a holy God is perfect because of Christ's work. Apprehending that, together with all the other things present in what the Standards say, gives much peace, comfort, and assurance.

I think that there are good and helpful ways properly to emphasize the subjective here (which figures hugely) without saying that it has primacy. Say it has "great importance" and you get no argument from me. Say, "if we can live like the devil and still have assurance, something is terribly wrong," and I will agree with you entirely. Many folk today seem to have a surfeit of assurance who seem to have little right to such. If what you have pointed out in the Standards were most closely attended to, there would be less
"facile assurance" today and more crying out to God for mercy.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Ben:

I am jumping back in here, having read over again, all that the Standards have to say about the subject, and I would add something. I also read more carefully over your posts, I might add.

While I still believe that the Scriptures and the Standards do not teach that the subjective is the primary ground of assurance (your original claim), I do think that in its treatment of the subject, Westminster not only highlights but gives greater attention to the subjective. This does not dislodge my conditions/cause arguments, which are in the background of a plethora of confessional discussions, whether explicit or not (debates, writings of divines, etc.), your little dismissal notwithstanding.

Now if you want to talk about the thrust of the Standards' teaching, as you do in the last post, that's a related, but, strictly speaking, different matter. I would, as I reflect further, agree that the thrust of the Standards' teaching treats the subjective and I would even say that it seems to give a sort of primacy to the subjective. But that's not quite the same--is it?--as saying that the subjective is the primary ground of assurance.

Again, much of this occurs here in the WS as it does because of the concern about antinomianism, a matter that I wrote about on other post here recently. I think that I am even fine with saying that the Standards here condition assurance primarily on the subjective. I also agree with you that the psychological brilliance of the Divines is on display in this question. Because of a lot of the nonsense of secular psychology today, we seem unable to distinguish the good from the bad in that regard. When we do that, we end up with shallowness, formalism, and Phariseeism. I have enough of this to deal with in myself. May the Lord save us all from it and may the deft skill of the Divines here help us in it.

Peace,
Alan